Ethics Lecture Two

Ethics – Lecture Two 2/11/05

(quote 1)

Objectives

understand what the words consequentialist (teleological) and nonconsequentialist (deontological) ethics mean

understand what the terms psychological egoism and ethical egoism mean

know the three different kinds of ethical egoism

know the two main consequentialist theories: ethical egoism and utilitarianism

know the two different types of utilitarianism


It may be helpful if we first look at what the definition of consequence is: a result of something else.

The two major viewpoints in ethics are: consequentialist (concerned with consequences – results) and nonconsequentialist (not concerned with consequences).

(quote 2)

Consequentialist Ethics

ethical egoism
utilitarianism

The two main consequentialist theories are ethical egoism and utilitarianism.

Egoism: means a state of mind where one is always thinking about themselves and what is best for ourselves. In philosophy: our actions are caused by our need to please ourselves.

Both ethical egoism and utilitarianism agree that human beings should act in ways to bring about good results or consequences.

They are different in who they say should benefit from the good consequences – ethical egoism says “I” should – utilitarianism says “everybody” should.

Should I steal some money from my friend?

Ethical egoism: how does or could it affect me

Utilitarianism: how does or could it affect everyone – including me.

Let’s look at each of these – ethical egoism and utilitarianism - in more detail.

Ethical Egoism

It is not the same as selfishness – if I act selfishly all the time people not like me and treat me badly.

Ethical egoism can take three forms:

(quote 3)

Universal ethical egoism

Everyone should do what is good for themselves – it doesn’t matter if it is good for other people or not

Individual ethical egoism

Everyone should do what is good for ‘me’

Personal ethical egoism

I should do what is good for me – but I make no claims as to what other people should do

Forms 2 and 3 are hard to make into ethical theory because they are just about one person – ‘me’ – and cannot be applied to all others.

This is important because an ethical theory – to be an ethical theory – should be able to be applied to all people.

Universal ethical egoism is the version most used by ethical egoists – because it can be universally applied.

Universal ethical is put forward by philosophers, such as:

(quote 4)

Universal Ethical Egoism

Epicurus
Ayn Rand
Jesse Kalin
John Hospers

Ethical egoism can work – but is limited. It works best in isolation – where there less conflicts amongst people’s self-interests. When self-interests conflict ethical egoists often move to utilitarianism – in today world – where cultures and different peoples are closer than ever - and people’s self interests can often conflict.

Utilitarianism

The main philosophers of this ethical theory are:

(quote 5)

Jeremy Bentham (1748-1832)

John Stuart Mill (1806-1873)

Utilitarianism gets its name from utility which means usefulness.

(quote 6)

Utilitarianism: everyone should do actions or follow the rule that will bring about the greatest good (or happiness) for everyone involved.

The reason for mentioning both acting and following rules is that there are two main kinds of utilitarianism.

(quote 7)

Utilitarianism

‘Act’ Utilitarianism

‘Rule’ Utilitarianism



Act Utilitarianism

In Act Utilitarianism you do not make rules because every situation is different and every person is different – so the idea is that each individual should look at the situation and the people involved and work out what would bring the greatest amount of good consequences (or, at least, the least amount of bad consequences) – not just for themselves – as in egoism – but for all the people involved.

The person acting must decide – if – for example – if telling the truth will bring the best result for everyone – or will lying bring more good consequences?

In act utilitarianism there are no absolute rules against lying, stealing, or killing – because every situation is different and every person is different.

So an action is considered ethical or unethical – moral or immoral – depending on how many good consequences it brings for everyone involved in a particular situation.




Criticisms

How does one decide what is good for another person?

It is very hard to assess every new situation – beginning again. There are some situations that seem similar and we should be able to make universal rules – like not killing.


‘Rule’ Utilitarianism

This says NOT that everyone should ACT to bring about the greatest good, but that people should follow the rule which brings about the greatest good for everyone involved.

This overcomes the problem in ‘act’ utilitarianism of all starting again with every new situation.

So rather trying to decide in every situation whether I should kill or not – ‘rule’ utilitarians make a rule, say: “You should not kill except in self-defence.

‘Rule’ Utilitarians believe that human beings are similar enough to set up some ethical rules that can apply to everyone.

However ‘rule’ utilitarianism shares one of the same problems with ‘act’ utilitarianism in that it is difficult to decide what it is the greatest good for all involved.

The arguments against ‘rule’ utilitarianism is that it is even harder to find a rule that applies in all situations and with all people – instead of deciding on each particular situation and group of people.

It is very difficult to come up with a rule which covers all situations.

Also the term “the greatest good for the greatest number” – sometimes this might mean really good things for the majority and really bad things for the minority.

Would it be okay then to kill say 100 children if it was going to save the lives of 10,000 children?

ie. shooting down the planes that crashed into the WTC.

The problem with utilitarianism is that it can be like mathematics applied to humans – and human ethics.

Kant believed that no human being should be used as an end.

Utilitarianism can be seen as an improvement over egoism as it thinks more about other people’s happiness.

The problem with consequentialist forms of ethics - such as ethical egoism and utilitarianism – is that it is very hard to be decide if the consequences are going to be good or bad.

Take the assassination of a corrupt or bad leader.

In our next lecture we we look at:

(quote 8)

Nonconsequentialist (Deontological) Theories of Ethics


These are theories of ethics where the consequences or results are not as important.
Nonconsequentialist theories of ethics decide on what is right and wrong without deciding what the consequences might be.